It is crucially important that the NHS is not overwhelmed, but if COVID deaths can be kept in the order of say 20,000 by stringent suppression measures, as is now being suggested, there may end up being a minimal impact on overall mortality for 2020 (although background mortality could increase due to pressures on the health services and the side-effects of isolation). — Spiegelharter
an above average number of deaths registered in the last official figures in the UK (50% above average) requires some kind of explanation — I like sushi
The general population’s mistrust of scientists, and politician’s lack of scientific understanding, are the main factors. — I like sushi
The Iraq War wasn’t anything to do with science on the scale the pandemic does. People just want to be told when, why and how and certainly don’t like the honest scientific opinion of ‘we can only give you rough estimates, so we err on the side of caution or millions could die’. — I like sushi
Anyone else actually get the 'rona?
It never ceases to amaze me the lengths people will go to to maintain their chosen narrative.
I should never have started trying to have a reasonable discussion again.
When a plan is put into place and works, those opposed to it can always turn around and say it wouldn’t have mattered if no plan was used. — I like sushi
Please do stick around to discuss this, your contributions are valued. — Punshhh
I am not sure what you position is? — Punshhh
This will lead some people to imagine there was never a problem in the first place. — I like sushi
My argument with boethius is mainly about his ridiculous assertion that the overlap will definitely be small because there's no significant overlap in factors. This despite the fact the the only recorded factors affecting prognosis thus far are exactly the same as the factors affecting prognosis in other conditions, as the four articles I cited demonstrate. — Isaac
What is practically significant isn't precise and is a matter of opinion. It appears to me you and boethius might be discussing opinions at this point which is why you aren't reaching agreement. — Benkei
since this apparently includes obesity and diabetis — Benkei
You're right, and of course, the timescale matters. Thinking about overlap with deaths this year is a fairly arbitrary cut off point (why not the next two years or five). — Isaac
3) 2000 cases from respiratory conditions is not far off normal. It's the amount of cases with underlying health problems being pushed over the edge that is the real problem here. The key thing there being that we don't know how many of them would have died anyway, nor will we until the year's figures are out. — Isaac
Yes, the reasoning is based on the empirical data that the virus seems to simply double your chances of death this year, whatever your risk group; that this is the best predictor for most people. — boethius
However, if long term injury increases the risk-of-death factor for survivors of Covid, then you may end up with more deaths in absolute terms next year due to lung injuries or other long term Covid treatment complications. (likewise for every other demographic cohort) — boethius
We know with great precision how many of those people were going to die this year anyway, its about 300,000 (the death rate minus deaths from accidents). So until the death rate from Covid-19 exceeds 300,000 you can't possibly say that the victims were not going to die anyway, simply on the basis of the numbers, you additionally need data on the overlap - or you need to wait for deaths occurring over a longer timescale - say a year, or you need a plausible mechanism of fatality which does no coincide with underlying health conditions. — Isaac
My argument is a counter-argument to the idea that Covid is shaving off a population from these risk groups that can be in some sense said to "about to die anyways"; I've been using a year as a baseline time frame for the meaning of "about to die".
Covid doesn't kill enough people to have an obvious and noticeable statistical effect of this kind, such as non-respiratory disease going forward making up for, or nearly making up for, Covid deaths and arriving at some equilibrium. — boethius
We've been discussing the time frame of a year. — boethius
My argument with boethius is mainly about his ridiculous assertion that the overlap will definitely be small because there's no significant overlap in factors. This despite the fact the the only recorded factors affecting prognosis thus far are exactly the same as the factors affecting prognosis in other conditions, as the four articles I cited demonstrate. — Isaac
Him saying the overlap 'is not the point' of the graph has somehow become him saying that there is no substantial overlap (oh, sorry I forgot 'substantial' now means 'very small' - I will have to get the hang of this newspeak) — Isaac
I agree that the complicating factors of system overloading and long-term lung damage make the figures difficult to say with certainty, but there is not any evidential support for the position that the overlap with those who would have died anyway will be statistically very small. As Professor Ferguson says, this is primarily a condition which causes death in those who are already very ill. — Isaac
1) A spike in the death rate is only a snapshot at a particular moment. The 6000 extra people who died last week are not now available to form the pool of people who will die next week. This would be irrelevant if Covid-19 did not preferentially target those with underlying problems, but it does. — Isaac
Professor Ferguson and Professor Spiegelhalter are referring to the yearly mortality in their comments, as have I been. — Isaac
1. High overlap undermines certain arguments against social distancing measures because there should be little net excess in treatment requirement, focusing the main problem even more in the height of the spike of cases. Without overlap there is an argument that flattening the curve will not help because it pulls staff from other vulnerable cases in the long term so providing no net gain. In other words, with overlap we only need to re-assign resources (which everyone agrees is doable), without overlap we need to produce a net increase in resources (which many think is not doable, so why bother >> herd immunity bullshit). — Isaac
the effect is not so large as to essentially balance out deaths over the year, or come anywhere close to that. — boethius
No where have you presented any evidence that most people dying of Covid would die within 1 year. — boethius
Substantial for a statistician can easily mean "a small but statistically significant effect". — boethius
What evidence is there that the effect of overlap with people "who would otherwise die this year" is a big effect as opposed to a small effect? — boethius
Please do stick around to discuss this, your contributions are valued. I think you unfortunately chose to dig a little deeper with the wrong interlocutor. Boethius is quite argumentative, he seems to enjoy it. But this might result in a failure to reach consensus. — Punshhh
I'm not sure you're even arguing / implying something against what I emphasize above, or are just compiling all the statistical minutia of relations to consider.
In terms of adding to the list, a big one that can not only nullify the affect of high-risk groups decreasing in absolute size (due to dying), but actually reverse that tendency, is that the virus may cause long term lung damage.
So, if every 70 year old got the disease, all else being equal, we may expect that demographic cohort to have less deaths post-pandemic, simply due to their numbers being smaller or perhaps particularly weak breathers being culled from the heard. However, if long term injury increases the risk-of-death factor for survivors of Covid, then you may end up with more deaths in absolute terms next year due to lung injuries or other long term Covid treatment complications. (likewise for every other demographic cohort)
Long story short, some Covid deaths would have died anyways, but expected overlap is small (extreme bias towards this group getting Covid would be needed for a significant overlap), and long-term injury may compensate, even significantly over-compensate, this overlap by increasing the risk-of-death factor for these risk groups (indeed all risk groups). — boethius
What we know is that the vast majority of fatalities (over 90%) had other comorbidities which were "mostly likely to be the underlying cause of death for a person of that age and sex had they not died from COVID-19". so this is referring to cause of death at the time of death. — Isaac
I agree that the complicating factors of system overloading and long-term lung damage make the figures difficult to say with certainty, — Isaac
2. I'm extremely concerned about the effect the media has been able to exert on the general psyche. Culture has always been able to generate collective affect, but it's becoming worryingly uniform the more social media grows (I won't derail the thread by going into it here, but imagine starlings murmuring - one or two and it's just a mess going every which way, thousands and it suddenly looks like a choreographed dance, but all it is is just thousands of birds all trying to respond to each other and making tiny errors in copying which then get magnified) — Isaac
What we know is that the vast majority of fatalities (over 90%) had other comorbidities which were "mostly likely to be the underlying cause of death for a person of that age and sex had they not died from COVID-19". so this is referring to cause of death at the time of death. — Isaac
Hardly any ancient farmers died of cancer. It's not because they were super-healthy, it's mostly because they died of something else first. — Isaac
That 90 percent of Covid deaths had comobidities, but that does not mean 90 percent will die within 1 year. Then you agree with my original position! — boethius
You mean that regardless of overlap, long term lung damage may simply replenished those "at risk of dying within 1 year" then you agree with my original position! — boethius
300,000 people die each year (from disease). These deaths are drawn, in the overwhelming majority, from the exact group of people who would have the comorbidities listed in the ONS figures as having a 90% overlap with Covid-19 fatality. I've supported that assertion for heart disease and cancer by providing studies of risk factors and prognosis. — Isaac
For your claim to be true, there would have to be little overlap with this group. — Isaac
No. "Complicate the figures" is not anywhere near "replenish the entire cohort". Again, there is no evidence that lung damage will cause future deaths in these numbers. This is just your speculation and needs evidence to support it. — Isaac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.